Making a murderer - The Avery case (Spoilers)

Irish_Tom · 3 Nov 2018 at 18:45

Screeeech said:
I think to be fair, when I said it was forensically impossible - I was being blasé, she does say under cross-examination, that she doesn't believe the remains were moved from another location - but you're right, it's certainly not as cut and dry as I was making out. But I still maintain it's extremely unlikely someone other than Avery burnt the body outside his trailer without him knowing.

The evidence from the steel belted tires, and her remained entwined within them was from the arson investigator which helped process the scene,

(page 60)
https://static1.squarespace.com/sta...71/Jury-Trial-Transcript-Day-18-2007Mar07.pdf

However, he gives a few explanations as to how that could happen - but no opinion on exactly how the body was burned.

Thanks for this.

So he doesn’t rule out that the bones could have been tipped over or raked through the steel from the tires. It’s not like the only way the bones could have become intertwined with the steel is by having a body placed on or under them while it burned…

The one thing from his testimony that does stand out (I can’t remember if this was also mentioned in Dr. Eisenberg’s testimony) is that the fragments found in the barrel were much bigger than those found in the pit.

I would assume that if the remains had been tipped out of the barrel into the pit, it wouldn’t just be the big bits that stayed in the barrel.

Felon · 3 Nov 2018 at 20:10

One massive (in my opinion) piece of incriminating evidence, is how in a phone call between Steven Avery and Barb janda, Steven admits he had a bonfire that night with Brendan, it’s at 0:30 in this video;

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=-KYLXZcI7_0

He actually denies he had a fire in his statement,

(Page 7/12)
https://static1.squarespace.com/sta...df28318735c70f/1491943339563/STEVEN+NOV+9.pdf

How does one explain that away.

ColdAsIce · 3 Nov 2018 at 21:04

Screeeech said:
One massive (in my opinion) piece of incriminating evidence, is how in a phone call between Steven Avery and Barb janda, Steven admits he had a bonfire that night with Brendan, it’s at 0:30 in this video;

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=-KYLXZcI7_0

He actually denies he had a fire in his statement,

(Page 7/12)
https://static1.squarespace.com/sta...df28318735c70f/1491943339563/STEVEN+NOV+9.pdf

How does one explain that away.

What's very interesting about that whole conversation is you get the hint that they both think Brendan has seen some of this but like I said. Not by Steven Avery. Most likely his brother/step dad.

deuse · 3 Nov 2018 at 21:15

dowie said:
No one knows that the encounter with the cop happened.

The truck driver who told the cop does. And again he signed a affidavit to the fact.

... it is plausible that the step Dad just thought this local guy who had texted him was just another nutter, it is possible he didn't pay much attention to it as he had rather a lot of texts/calls relating to the case etc.. but regardless the fact is these texts got sent after the show was aired.

Did you miss the bit where he texted him back?

deuse · 3 Nov 2018 at 21:17

Screeeech said:
Is this just from Netflix? or is this from the case files? .

From the women and from cell phone tower records. And I think the court records.

deuse · 3 Nov 2018 at 21:21

Screeeech said:
I’d also like to throw something else out there;

In my opinion, people who think there’s any sort of scientific legitimacy to the claims Zellner is making needs to think again.

That phoney brain scan nonsense is utterly preposterous, but it paints an interesting picture of her thought process.

If she’s willing to stoop so low, to the point of using nonsense, unproven, “scientific” baloney to prove her point, then that sets off alarm bells immediately.

If she’s willing to be so brazen by resorting to such obvious nonsense - shouldn’t people highly sceptical - why are people so eager to jump on board with her ideas, when the techniques she’s employing are ridiculous, unfounded, untested and worst of all - biased to advance her idea only - that’s not scientific.

Then people are so willing to try and take my arguments on, the vast majority of which come from the case and evidence - yet they’re not questioning anything Zellner is saying.

She’s so full of **** even her eyes are brown.

How about the cops telling the head coroner. That if she turns up at the site she will be arrested.

And yes she went to say this in court. But the DA got the judge to rule in the DAs favour. So she never. You did read that court transcript....Didn't you.
The DA has a lot to hide...

dowie · 3 Nov 2018 at 21:21

deuse said:
The truck driver who told the cop does. And again he signed a affidavit to the fact.

You're being needlessly pedantic there - when I say no one knows the implication is I'm referring to everyone else other than the guy making the statement... of course he knows if he's lying or not - that doesn't really need stating. The point still stands.

Did you miss the bit where he texted him back?

The same points still apply. Do you now acknowledge that these texts occurred after the first season of show aired thus after the trial(s)?

dowie · 3 Nov 2018 at 21:23

deuse said:
How about the cops telling the head coroner. That if she turns up at the site she will be arrested.

Because she worked for the county Avery was suing and they were supposed to stay out of the investigation.

If she had been involved (and presumably not had a chip on her shoulder as a result) then it would be something the people defending Avery could point at as part of the case for him.... "oh look the coroner said this but she worked for the county he is suing so she had a motive to be part of a coverup"

deuse · 3 Nov 2018 at 21:25

dowie said:
You're being needlessly pedantic there - when I say no one knows the implication is I'm referring to everyone else other than the guy making the statement... of course he knows if he's lying or not - that doesn't really need stating. The point still stands.

The same points still apply. Do you now acknowledge that these texts occurred after the first season of show aired thus after the trial(s)?

The texts was sent when the cop got on the stand. And they knew each other(for the 3rd time)
And if you signed a affidavit to the fact in my state and lie. Be prepared to do 5-15 in jail. Then add another 5 for doing it to a cop.

deuse · 3 Nov 2018 at 21:27

dowie said:
Because she worked for the county Avery was suing and they were supposed to stay out of the investigation.

If she had been involved (and presumably not had a chip on her shoulder as a result) then it would be something the people defending Avery could point at as part of the case for him.... "oh look the coroner said this but she worked for the county he is suing so she had a motive to be part of a coverup"

You don't get it. The DA ask her not to turn up because of the $ millions involved(yes the cop said that)

The cop can't arrest her...but she can arrest him ...fun fact.

dowie · 3 Nov 2018 at 21:36

deuse said:
The texts was sent when the cop got on the stand. And they knew each other(for the 3rd time)

no, you're still getting muddled over this - this is a really straight forward point that you've quoted me several times over because you've got the basic details wrong - the text messages didn't get sent until he watched the first season of the TV show, he didn't get a reply - see the below report on it

https://www.weau.com/content/news/454510473.html

"The motion states that the witness, on Jan. 15 and 16, 2016, sent
text messages to Scott Tadych, Brendan Dassey's now stepfather, after recognizing Sgt. Colborn from "Making A Murderer." Tadych did not respond or report the information to the attorneys for his stepson, Brendan Dassey."

deuse said:
And if you signed a affidavit to the fact in my state and lie. Be prepared to do 5-15 in jail. Then add another 5 for doing it to a cop.

rather irrelevant - as already pointed out no one knows whether he is lying or not (aside from him and possibly the cop)

deuse said:
You don't get it. The DA ask her not to turn up because of the $ millions involved(yes the cop said that)

No I do get it, that doesn't contradict what I already stated - Avery is pursuing the county for millions at the time and therefore the county took steps to back off from the investigation.

Roland Butter · 4 Nov 2018 at 03:09

dowie said:
I think that is pretty much it, she ignored the Avery family previously(she no doubt gets plenty of requests from various criminals), it was only when the program aired that she suddenly took an interest. Now her twitter feed and law firm web site is all about the Avery cases, she's invested a six figure sum from her own funds in running lots of these experiments etc.. but it might as well be looked at as a marketing budget as she's made herself famous in the process.

She took her time to get involved, what would her reason be to invest such a lot
of her time and money in a cast iron case that she knows will never be overturned ?

She has seen all the evidence, all the evidence that the producers of
MAM season one strangely didn't show but that the jury saw, that shows
that Avery is very gulity.

Her participation in MAM season 2 is highly suspicious, sheer manna from
heaven to a TV production company with a hit on its hands , desperate for
a second Netflix run but with very little new stuff to fill 10 episodes.

deuse · 4 Nov 2018 at 13:56

dowie said:
no, you're still getting muddled over this - this is a really straight forward point that you've quoted me several times over because you've got the basic details wrong - the text messages didn't get sent until he watched the first season of the TV show, he didn't get a reply - see the below report on it

https://www.weau.com/content/news/454510473.html

"The motion states that the witness, on Jan. 15 and 16, 2016, sent
text messages to Scott Tadych, Brendan Dassey's now stepfather, after recognizing Sgt. Colborn from "Making A Murderer." Tadych did not respond or report the information to the attorneys for his stepson, Brendan Dassey."

rather irrelevant - as already pointed out no one knows whether he is lying or not (aside from him and possibly the cop)

No I do get it, that doesn't contradict what I already stated - Avery is pursuing the county for millions at the time and therefore the county took steps to back off from the investigation.

Looks like I was wrong about that bit.

But I was right about the cop no doing a report about when\where he was told and where the ladies car was.
That cop is a bent a 3 speed walking stick.

dowie · 4 Nov 2018 at 15:51

deuse said:
Looks like I was wrong about that bit.

But I was right about the cop no doing a report about when\where he was told and where the ladies car was.
That cop is a bent a 3 speed walking stick.

How do you know you're right about that? The point is no one knows for sure either way, what evidence do you have other than the claim from the witness?

deuse · 6 Nov 2018 at 08:30

dowie said:
How do you know you're right about that? The point is no one knows for sure either way, what evidence do you have other than the claim from the witness?

If the truck driver was lying the bent cop would have sued him.

I asked my niece, who is a higher cop in Florida. She said that the cop failed to write up a report of where\when\time it happened(she has no opinion on the case).
Also the only time a bent cop does that(no write up) is so no one investigates it. And that's what happened here.

I would go with a person that has done a sworn affidavit. then a cop that never reported what he should have done.

The IPB · 6 Nov 2018 at 09:07

dowie said:
No I do get it, that doesn't contradict what I already stated - Avery is pursuing the county for millions at the time and therefore the county took steps to back off from the investigation.

They took steps by stopping her going but then let loads of their officers search the property.

I feel Avery is guilty but there is so much weirdness with this case it's unreal.

Felon · 6 Nov 2018 at 09:38

deuse said:
How about the cops telling the head coroner. That if she turns up at the site she will be arrested.

And yes she went to say this in court. But the DA got the judge to rule in the DAs favour. So she never. You did read that court transcript....Didn't you.
The DA has a lot to hide...

Can you please provide further reference to this, I don’t know exactly what you’re referring too so it’s difficult to comment without more information.

Roland Butter said:
She has seen all the evidence, all the evidence that the producers of
MAM season one strangely didn't show but that the jury saw, that shows
that Avery is very gulity.

Her participation in MAM season 2 is highly suspicious, sheer manna from
heaven to a TV production company with a hit on its hands , desperate for
a second Netflix run but with very little new stuff to fill 10 episodes.

I think making a murderer whilst being well written and good to watch, is probably the most one-sided, biased, unfair and also disrespectful documentary I’ve ever seen.

I found it almost beyond comprehension, listening to and watching Zellner’s nonsense, fake “alternative facts” being sucked up and preached by all those so-called “truthers” as being the gospel truth.

People should be embarrassed with themselves, if they can’t see through the misinformation and brazen attempts, to implicate anybody other than who the evidence shows, beyond the most reasonable of doubts, is guilty.

Ultimately- the vast majority of “new evidence” didn’t even make it out of Netflix into Zellners court motion - nobody seems interested by that. If she had all of this “damning” “explosive” “exonerating” evidence, why is most of it not present in her motion...

It sums up the strange times we live in, where people are so easily convinced by a specific narrative. They just jump right on board, without verification - even when it’s obvious that other agendas ($$ and publicity) are the driving factors, some people seem totally blind to it.

Felon · 6 Nov 2018 at 09:54

I would also add, the other night I listened to Dan O Donnells podcast “rebutting a murderer” he’s a qualified lawyer and journalist who covered the original Avery and Dassey trials.

He does a very good job of showing just how much information was purposefully left out by Netflix, along with good examples of hypocrisy and double standards, mirroring each Netflix episode.

You can listen to it on Apple podcasts

https://www.iheart.com/podcast/139-rebutting-a-murderer-27424970/

Columbo · 6 Nov 2018 at 09:55

Screeeech said:
Can you please provide further reference to this, I don’t know exactly what you’re referring too so it’s difficult to comment without more information.

Below is a decent timeline of events:

https://www.reddit.com/r/TickTockMa...coroner_debra_kakatsch_barred_from_the_crime/

Felon · 6 Nov 2018 at 10:14

Columbo said:
Below is a decent timeline of events:

https://www.reddit.com/r/TickTockMa...coroner_debra_kakatsch_barred_from_the_crime/

Two possible options;

A turf war (as described by the judge) and what looks perhaps like a procedural error, or misunderstanding involving the conflict of interest. (As the judge explains, things like this would just confuse a jury)

OR

It’s evidence of a conspiracy theory at play, black helicopters and the like..